RE: Unwarranted assumption

["Spell, Bill" <bills@deq.state.la.us>]

Very interesting.  It may well be an unwarranted assumption, but I've always 
heard (I don't have direct evidence) there is a substantial amount iodine in 
shellfish.  It may also be supportive of the fact that there are significant 
differences among individuals.  I don't have an answer at this point, but I 
suggest that a person who is allergic to one or the other (and bee or wasp 
stings) should be very careful, and keep the Benadryl handy.

The usual disclaimers apply, unfortunately.

Bill
bills@deq.state.la.us

 ----------
From: radsafe
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Unwarranted assumption
Date: Monday, October 21, 1996 11:49AM

In the ongoing thread on the risks of administering stable iodine to
protect the thyroid from damage from radioiodine, several people seem to
be equating an allergy to seafood with a reaction to iodine.  To me, this
seems an amazing leap of logic, although it is by no means the first nor
the worst that I have seen on Radsafe.  I have a physician friend who is
severely allergic to shellfish and yet does not suffer from sensitivity to
iodine.  Some reactions to seafood may be reactions to iodine, but some
are certainly not.
Ed Leidholdt
Leidholdt.Edwin@FORUM.VA.GOV
The above opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.